I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.

AZ approves "Vermont style" concealed carry

Posted by David Hardy · 8 April 2010 09:35 PM

Story here. It now goes to the governor, who will likely sign it. Egad, for most of my life AZ followed the rule of most western States -- carry openly without limit, but nobody except a peace officer can carry concealed, and there are no permits, either. Not that it really made any difference, since CCW without a permit was a misdemeanor punished with a modest fine and seizure of the gun, or the person could plead to a larger fine and get the gun back. A person bent upon committing a violent crime was unlikely to worry much about a misdemeanor and fine.

I think it's a fine law, and as Vermont shows it should not lead to any problems. We changed the laws to allow CCW holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol with no problems, so this one should be no problem either.

"We wouldn't give people driver's licenses without requiring training or testing. Why would we give people the ability to carry a concealed weapon anywhere?" said Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson.

Sorta echoing Chuck's comments above, what is this garbage? Does the Constitution say you have a right to drive? No. Does it say you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. What part of the brain has to stop functioning in order to not see the difference between the two?

People have just as much, actually much more right to drive as to carry concealed. It's a travesty that the courts haven't recognized the right to drive. But you don't let blind people drive or let felons have guns. Still, there's a reason permits to drive may be OK whereas permits to carry are not justified. The reason is that carry permits just aren't needed. As proven in Vermont and Alaska. Poor driving skills are much more likely to get someone killed than poor gun handling skills. Mainly just because people drive much more often than they get in shootouts.

The large majority of the time when you need your concealed weapon you just pull it out and that's all the skill it takes. The large majority of the rest of the time, common sense is all you need to do your shooting. And of that tiny fraction of cases when brandishing or common sense firing aren't sufficient, the primary life at risk is the person who neglected to get the training and practice needed, rather than bystanders or other innocent parties.

As a former LEO in a rural community, all I can tell is my experience. In 7 years, we had two shooting incidents; neither fatal.

In this same time period, I can't think of a single weekend where we were not arresting drunk drivers, peeling their remains off some immovable object or, the worst, picking up the remains of drunk drivers who thought they could beat the train through the crossing.

On another note, one does not require a license to drive an automobile on personal property. One may also drive rubber-tired agricultural equipment, bicycles, ride horses, etc. on public streets.

This is a great law. There is a city in the Atlanta,GA area that requires all home owners to possess a gun. This was due to the fact break ins were rampant there. After the law passed the break-ins were non existent. When the Mayer was asked how he was going to enforce the law? He said "I can't, but criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't!" The best law enforcement is an armed "Law abiding Citizen". Next we have to pass a law that tells the feds they cannot constitutionally force health care on us.